Alan Sondheim on Tue, 5 Nov 2019 01:39:14 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: <nettime> Facebook
I'm in agreement here; I leave as little trace as I can. (Also trapped because I want my own work to remain.) This reminds me of the fight I had on YouTube with Viacom and YouTube (later) re: my banning which went on for a couple of years, a fight I finally won. YouTube has its own viciousness of course - even something as saying no to autoplay, which then returns on the next login.
I'd be curious about the server farms YouTube must use; they seem unimaginable to me. 

Best, Alan

On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, Craig Fahner wrote:


maybe it's not so much a question of whether facebook's policies are bad (of
course they are) or whether facebook is part of our social infrastructure
(of course it is), but, rather, what capacity users have to undermine
facebook's more predatory policies and evade its data collection regimes and
biased recommendation algorithms. given that a lot of people use facebook
not because they think it's an optimal platform, but because it is
absolutely necessary to use it in order to connect with certain communities,
what possibilities exist for users to participate in those communities while
circumventing the platform's more odious aspects? what do a tactics of
social media usership look like? i suspect they would engage in a constant
give-and-take with the algorithmic governing forces that be, but, with a
growing sentiment of suspicion regarding facebook's policies, perhaps a
tactical approach along the lines of plugins that remove algorithmic
recommendation features, deliberate scrambling/obfuscation of users' data
and trackable behaviours, etc. might be more successful in empowering users
than simply encouraging them to leave the platform entirely.
craig fahner - https://www.craigfahner.com/

On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 9:25 AM Alan Sondheim <sondheim@panix.com> wrote:


      On Mon, 4 Nov 2019, mp wrote:

      > On 03/11/2019 20:36, Alan Sondheim wrote:
      >>
      >> The loss is more important to me
      >
      >> On Sun, 3 Nov 2019, Frederic Neyrat wrote:
      >>> 1/ FB enables to create a "community," that's good for
      sure;?
      >>> 2/ but in the same time, it destroys?the condition of the
      possibility of
      >>> community/togetherness/Gemeinwesen/?tre-ensemble, etc.
      >
      > Individual, particular and hence relatively short term
      perspective and
      > context (Alan's) vs. collective, abstract and hence relatively
      long term
      > perspective and context (Frederic's).
      >
      > A common disjuncture.
      >

      What disturbs me here is the assumption of passivity "relatively
      short
      term perspective" for example. Unless you know my work, read my
      posts,
      etc., you have no idea how long my perspective is. I've run
      talkers, a
      MOO, conferencing in IRC years ago, CuSeeMe, and on and on. I've
      taught
      courses in internet culture from 1995 on. And one of the things
      that keeps
      me generally from posting on nettime, is its own toxicity, these
      constant
      presumptions about one another, about the world, etc. And re:
      below, there
      is no "on the one hand, on the other hand" - the issue is far
      more complex
      as is people's usage of Fb or other platforms (for example email
      lists
      themselves). So "email is also shit"?

      I know a hell of a lot of free jazz musicians who work through
      Fb, fight
      racism, and take advantage of the platform. I know people who
      have found
      community on Fb that is absent for them in rl. I've participated
      in
      courses taught on Fb. I've engaged in political action on the
      platform. I
      don't expect purity anywhere; I never have. And one person's
      purity can be
      another person's hell. I'm appalled at Fb's policies but also
      given that
      the platform has between 1 and 2.4 billion users, the sociality
      is far
      greater (and far more diverse and interesting) than its public
      image.

      Alan


      > It is a complex issue. On the one hand it makes sense to
      adjust your
      > means to the ends you desire. Be the change you want to see
      and all that.
      >
      > On the other hand, it could be seen as a form of
      neoliberalisation when
      > the responsibility for the future of the system is distributed
      to
      > individuals - and at the end of the day, it is impossible to
      live in
      > this planetary urbanisation without acting in destructive
      ways, so we
      > all have to cut corners. Email is also shit for the web of
      life we are
      > entangled in.

      > #?distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without
      permission
      > #?<nettime>? is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
      > #?collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
      > #?more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
      > #?archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
      > #?@nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:
      >
      #?distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
      #?<nettime>? is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
      #?collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
      #?more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
      #?archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
      #?@nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject:





web http://www.alansondheim.org / cell 347-383-8552
current text http://www.alansondheim.org/wo.txt
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
#  @nettime_bot tweets mail w/ sender unless #ANON is in Subject: